VoteKansas.org

WASHINGTON (AP) — Stung by high gasoline costs, outlying suburbs that sprouted in the heady 2000s are now seeing their growth fizzle to historic lows, halting American city dwellers' decades-long exodus to sprawling homes in distant towns.

New census estimates as of July 2011 highlight a shift in population trends ...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

Randolph requires the objecting defendant be actually present. Objecting elsewhere not enough. The court thus joins CA7 and CA8. United States v. Shrader, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6734 (4th Cir. April 4, 2012)

Shrader urges us, however, to expand the holding of Randolph and conclude that his earlier refusal vitiates his aunt's later consent, even though he was absent from the premises. Physical presence may not be dismissed as a mere function of the facts of Randolph, however. That presence reflected the "widely shared social expectations" that informed the Court's ruling. Randolph, 547 U.S. at 111. The Court noted that "a caller standing at the door of shared premises would have no confidence that one occupant's invitation was a sufficiently good reason to enter when a fellow tenant stood there saying, 'stay out.'" Id. at 113; see also id. at 114 ("[T]he co-tenant wishing to open the door to a third party has no recognized authority in law or social practice to prevail over a present and objecting co-tenant.") The Court plainly gave careful thought to the scope of the physical presence requirement that it articulated:

[W]e are drawing a fine line; if a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant's permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, loses out. This is the line we draw, and we think the formalism is justified. Id. at 121.

This case falls squarely on the permissible side of the line. Because Shrader was absent from the premises, and there was no evidence that he was arrested for the purpose of nullifying his refusal to consent to the search, his aunt's consent provided adequate permission for the police to search the house, notwithstanding his earlier objection.

In so holding, we join the Seventh and Eighth Circuits in adhering to the clearly drawn rule of Randolph and giving effect to the Supreme Court's explicit requirement that the defendant be physically present to dispute his cotenant's consent. See United States v. Henderson, 536 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Hudspeth, 518 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc). We decline to adopt the more expansive view of the Ninth Circuit which permits a defendant's refusal to operate indefinitely, "barring some objective manifestation that he has changed his position and no longer objects." United States v. Murphy, 516 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2008). This latter approach raises practical problems. How broadly is constructive knowledge of a suspect's prior refusal to consent to be imputed to other officers? Must a suspect expressly indicate that he has changed his mind in the future, or may that be assessed from the totality of the circumstances? Is there some point at which the passage of time renders a prior objection inoperative? The Murphy interpretation of Randolph would involve courts in such questions, diverting attention from the basic social expectations that underlie not only the opinion in Randolph, but the larger corpus of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Careful observance of the requirement that an objecting cotenant be physically present thus not only shows fealty to the Supreme Court's precedent, but also focuses police and courts on the customary norms that form the basis for this area of law.

Defendant’s driving 52 in a 65 zone in the left lane on I-10 was not reasonable suspicion to stop him where there was no showing that he impeded traffic. Delafuente v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2602 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) April 3, 2012).*

Defendant was detained in the police car for five minutes while a DL check was run, and this did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendant’s unMirandized admissions of consumption of beer made then were admissible. While a pat-down search was conducted prior to defendant's statements, this search did not convert this routine traffic stop into a custodial situation as the search was nominally consensual, it was concluded in a few seconds, and nothing was found during the search. State v. Serafin, 2012 Ohio 1456, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1295 (11th Dist. March 30, 2012).*

A license plate in the back window and not where it belongs is reason for a stop in Ohio. State v. Fredo, 2012 Ohio 1496, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1314 (7th Dist. March 30, 2012).*

The remedy for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation for an unlawful stop is a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss. Reasonable suspicion is required for the stop, not probable cause, and the trial court erred. State v. Kilbarger, 2012 Ohio 1521, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1327 (4th Dist. March 19, 2012).*

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect Mitt Romney to spend a lot of time trying to get voters to like him this fall....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Darwinism, a popular topic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is making its way into modern American politics....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Darwinism, a popular topic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is making its way into modern American politics....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Darwinism, a popular topic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is making its way into modern American politics....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Darwinism, a popular topic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is making its way into modern American politics....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Darwinism, a popular topic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is making its way into modern American politics....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Darwinism, a popular topic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is making its way into modern American politics....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Darwinism, a popular topic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is making its way into modern American politics....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Darwinism, a popular topic in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is making its way into modern American politics....